The Top 5 Reasons to Reject Intergalactic Background Checks.

Call them what you will – enhanced, Intergalactic or whatever, they will be Universally ignored by the guilty and only serve to punish the innocent.

Once again, we are seeing our rights being eroded before our very eyes. With the latest mass murder outrage caused by the Left’s cultural Marxism, it is being demanded that we compromise on that which shall not be infringed. In their unending quest to disarm the people and empower themselves, the push is being made for Intergalactic Background Checks (enhanced, Universal, etc.)

As surely as night follows day, the Liberty grabbers are in high dungeon over the people actually having the ability to defend themselves. Thus they want the next stepping stone to their final aim of Gun Confiscation. The most infuriating aspect of this is that there are those on the Pro-Liberty, Conservative-Right side of the aisle who are willing to concede this important point to the Liberty grabbers.

Let us be clear on the real meaning of the seemingly innocuous phases bandied about by the enemies of liberty on the Left. When they talk about the ‘Intergalactic’ version of Background Checks they are really asserting the authority over everyone’s private property, a governmental overreach that would be enraged the truly Liberal founding fathers. Property rights are the cornerstone of Liberty, so do we really want the government to control It with these controls?

The following are the Top 5 reasons to reject this gross intrusion into our private property, not to mention being a violation of a number of the amendments in the Bill of Rights

1). Intergalactic Background Checks would punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty based on a polling impossibility.

The Liberty Grabbers have a perennial favourite tactic when it comes to this issue, trotting polling data that implies 90% agreement with ‘Background Checks’. Everyone should be immediately suspect of any polling data that shows upwards of over ¾ of the populace agreeing on anything. In the diverse electorate environment of the states, this kind of agreement is almost impossible. But to the Liberty Grabbers of the national Socialist Left, this is akin to mom and apple pie territory.

This polling is like that of comparing a known political candidate with an unspecified place holder. Often times people will fill in the blank with their ideal, in the case of ‘background checks’ those on the Pro-Liberty side merely agree to that which already exists.

While the Leftist enemies of Liberty fill in the blank with all manner of draconian schemes they can think of to punish the innocent for daring to want to protect themselves. After all, these are people who evidently don’t understand firearms or the unimaginable overburden of laws on a basic human right. So to them, imposing a hardship any milder than outright confiscation is being overly generous.

2). They don’t work while burdening the innocent in exercising their Common Sense human rights.

A massive study on the efficacy of ‘Gun’ Control from the RAND Corporation was recently published that stated in part:

We reviewed thousands of studies to identify all available evidence for the effects of 13 gun policies on eight outcomes. After excluding studies that did not meet our criteria for establishing a law’s effects, we found little persuasive evidence for the effects of most policies on most outcomes.

Summary: Evidence for the effect of background checks on mass shootings is inconclusive.

Key Findings:

Background checks have uncertain effects on mass shootings.

Evidence for this relationship is inconclusive.

Translating the academician speak into the King’s English – when they use phrases such as ‘uncertain effects’ or ‘inconclusive’ it really means ‘We don’t know’ and there is no hard data that these policies work. Parenthetically speaking, It’s hard to believe that they wouldn’t have trumpeted concrete, real world results for these policies from the virtual rooftops, if they could have found the data to support them.

The author details the number of non-suicide firearm deaths as roughly 11,000. While estimates of lives Saved by guns as ranging from “500,000 to more than 3 million per year”. That would be the societal cost of Intergalactic Background Checks for virtually no benefit.

Can anyone imagine the founding fathers acquiescing to governmental control over private property?

They knew that private property was the cornerstone of Liberty, so governmental control of it wouldn’t of made any sense to them. Set aside the enormous infringement on a common sense human right as prohibited by the 2nd Amendment while considering this possible ‘addition’ to the 4th amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” – but they will be under complete control of the government.

It could also argued that since the government asserting control over property, there would no longer be an ‘private’ property, thus part of the 5th amendment would no longer exist: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

So, in a trifecta of tyranny, Intergalactic Background Checks would violate at least 3 Amendments of the Bill of Rights. We could have extended this with the those also violating the 9th and 10th amendments, but the point has been made.

Parenthetically speaking, it’s always fun to ask our comrades of the national Socialist Left what is the legal or Constitutional justification for Intergalactic Background Checks. No answer will be forthcoming because there is no justification for this absurd amount of governmental overreach.

As to the justification for regular background checks, it could be argued that they are based on the often abused commerce clause with the firearm dealers being federally licensed.

4). IBC’s would set the Very Dangerous precedent of Collective Property Control.

Those imbued with the precepts of individual Liberty would find such a precedent abhorrent. Those of the collectivist ‘Common good before individual good’ mindset would be perfectly satisfied with that level of government overreach. It would also give them the opportunity to extend that kind of social engineering to untold areas of mischief.

Considering that such a perversion of property rights would turn the governmental limitations of the 2nd Amendment on it’s head, the implications of Intergalactic Background Checks are enormous. Instead of being a restraint on the government, a new-found constraint on the people will have been created out of whole cloth.

For if the government has purview over firearms, why not over items that emit greenhouse gasses? What other human rights could the collectivists eviscerate with that level of control? History has proven that governments cannot be trusted with too much power, hence the rationale of the founding fathers to limit it’s potential to grow out of control.

Who knows how the precedent of government control of private property could be abused?
Perhaps ever-increasing fees over obtaining permission to transfer a firearm?
Why not property taxes on firearms, enough to price most people out of possession?[Note: There is a very good chance that the Liberty grabbers have already considered these ideas, so we cannot be blamed for presenting them]

It should be painfully obvious that the only reason the Liberty grabbers obsess over this issue is that it is the next step for them toward their ultimate objective of gun confiscation. Intergalactic Background Checks would naturally lead into Gun registration followed by Gun confiscation. In point of fact, as soon as the government has control over everyone’s firearms, it is just a matter of picking them up at the most opportune time: Gun Registration is Gun Confiscation

The enemies of Liberty on the Left have overwhelmingly expressed a desire for gun confiscation so it’s primarily a matter of determining who has the firearms. Intergalactic Background Checks will go a long way in attaining this goal, for once they have control over the legal transfer of every gun, they can assemble registration lists and demand that their owners surrender their ‘property’ at any time.

This is why this type of tyranny needs to be stopped, dead in it’s tracks.

We identified one study that examined the effects of background checks on mass shootings and met our inclusion criteria. Using a two-way fixed-effects linear probability model, Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) estimated the effects of background check laws on a binary indicator for whether a mass shooting occurred in a given state-year. The authors included two measures of background check laws: an indicator for whether laws required a background check for all handgun transactions (including private sales) and an indicator for whether laws required a background check for all firearm transactions (including private sales). The authors’ regression ­analysis covered 1989–2014 and included controls for time-invariant state characteristics; national trends; a host of other state-level gun policies; and time-varying state-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political characteristics. Their findings showed an uncertain relationship between background check laws and the probability of at least one mass shooting event occurring.

Differential equations teaches us that one can use the initial conditions of the present to extrapolate events in the near term balanced with the knowledge of the past. The interaction of technological advances and the march of history is fascinating. History can inform those willing to listen as to what will happen in the future because the laws of human natural are as immutable as the elegant equations of Newtonian physics.

1 Comment

Public Citizen

March 6, 2018 at 7:08 pm

There is one key characteristic present in nearly all of these mass casualty events, that being the perpetrator is either a Registered Democrat or the offspring of a Democrat.
What is it about the Democrat Way of Thinking that acts as an incubator for the sort of mind that perpetrates these sorts of crimes?

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

“I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”

“I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation,to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection,rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought toenjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

Related

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?

In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty(gun)control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?

Related

It’s morally wrong to say “It’s morally wrong for a Christian school to arm faculty”

Pantego Christian Academy, a private Christian school in Texas, has announced that, in order to protect the students entrusted to the school’s care each day, several administrators will now be packing heat. Each administrator “who double as a school marshal will carry a concealed handgun, will have extensive weapons and scenario-training from the state and undergo a psychiatric evaluation” (foxnews.com).

Dr. Jeff Potts, the school’s president, stated:

We are arming select individuals who meet certain criteria. And they are administrative type people who are in close proximity to all of our classrooms.

It’s not Florida. It’s the culture today, and it’s something we felt led to do.

One former Pantego Christian Academy student did not welcome this news. Ryan Waller is an assistant rector at the Church of the Incarnation in Dallas, TX. Waller authored a March 2nd, 2018, article at the Dallas Morning News entitled, “It’s morally wrong for a Christian school to arm faculty.”

According to Waller, “Pantego’s decision to arm administrators with guns is not only ill-advised, it is morally reprehensible,” (emphasis mine).

Waller begins by presenting his own, secular arguments.

“It is the job of law enforcement and other security professionals to keep us safe,” he stated. Using a firearm is “problematic and complicated, even for professionals.”

For this reason, rather than allowing trained administrators to carry a firearm on school grounds in case of an emergency, Waller pleaded:

This is a time to trust the system and allow it to adjust. Let’s change gun laws. Let’s support police. Let’s praise companies like Dick’s Sporting Goods for stopping the sale of weapons meant only for war… Let’s not put more guns in schools.

The assistant rector did not attempt to reconcile the incongruity of relying upon law enforcement for protection while insisting on the prohibition of firearms; a firearm being a necessary feature of every law enforcement officer’s ensemble.

He also did not address the massive system-wide failure that enabled the school shooting in Florida to take place.

Waller then entered the theological realm:

I make one final appeal as a Christian priest. There’s nothing safe about being a Christian. Jesus Christ himself said that if we are to follow him we must pick up our cross and deny ourselves. When violence came for Jesus, he offered no defense of himself and instructed those around him to also resist a defense.

I’m not a true pacifist. I wish I was but I’m not. I believe there’s a time for fighting and for war. I support not only the police but also the armed forces. But as Christians we must allow those trained in the art of warfare to engage in war. Our role is to do what Jesus called us to do. Be his hands and feet. Feed the poor. Care for the widow and orphan.

Waller concluded his article with one final exhortation: “And may God bless America as it decides what kind of nation it hopes to be.”

My take:

Here’s my take, summed up into a single sentence: It’s morally wrong to say that “it’s morally wrong for a Christian school to arm faculty.”

Ryan Waller might be a lovely man. Unfortunately, I’d never know it from reading his article. Waller’s ease and confidence in twisting scripture and omitting context mirrors the deceptive acts of the most notorious profiteering, sleazy TV evangelists.

I take no issue with the assistant rector voicing his opinion – his opinion.

I do, however, object to Waller’s abuse of Holy Scripture and Waller’s exploitation of his own religious title in order to disguise his personal, political agenda by concealing it beneath the cloak of religion.

There are several issues regarding Waller’s theological arguments that must be unpacked…

First, Ryan Waller is correct to state that the world is unsafe for Christians. Christ specifically said that those who follow him will be hated by those who rebel against God (John 15:18). We should expect this hatred to manifest in various forms of religious persecution, including martyrdom.

However, the fact that Christians live in a hostile world is in no way an excuse for nor a directive to refrain from the defense of self or from the defense of children entrusted to one’s care.

Second, Waller correctly stated that Christians are to deny the self and carry one’s cross. In Luke 9:23, Christ stated, “If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily.” With these words, Jesus explained that to be His followers we must commit daily to faith and obedience, “even to the point of being shamed and persecuted by the world” (Orthodox Study Bible).

However, neither denying one’s selfish plans and desires nor the daily bearing of one’s own cross are in any way an excuse for nor a directive to refrain from the defense of self or from the defense of children entrusted to one’s care.

Third, Waller’s statement that, “When violence came for Jesus, he offered no defense of himself and instructed those around him to also resist a defense,” is wholly misleading.

Let’s examine the actual Scriptures (John 18:3-11):

3Judas led some soldiers and some men who had been sent by the head religious leaders of the Jews and the proud religious law-keepers to the garden. They carried lamps and sticks that were burning and swords.

4Jesus knew what was going to happen to Him. He went out and asked them, “Who are you looking for?”

5The soldiers answered Him, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

Jesus said, “I am Jesus.” Judas, who was handing Him over, was with them also.

6When He said to them, “I am Jesus,” they stepped back and fell to the ground.

7He asked them again, “Who are you looking for?”

They said again, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

8He said, “I have told you that I am Jesus. If you are looking for Me, let these men go their way.” 9He said this so the words he spoke might happen, “I have not lost one of those You gave Me.”

10Simon Peter had a sword. He took it and hit a servant who was owned by the head religious leader and cut off his right ear. 11Then Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back where it belongs. Am I not to go through what My Father has given Me to go through?”

Here, Jesus interrupts Peter’s physical defense, because it interfered with the completion of Christ’s mission to lay down His life so that Christians may have salvation, life everlasting. Jesus’s words to Simon Peter that night in the Garden of Gethsemane were in no way an infinite command to all future generations.

Christ’s words were not an excuse for nor a directive upon humanus infinitum to refrain from the defense of self or from the defense of children entrusted to one’s care.

In fact, “the idea that one is required to surrender his life – or the lives of his family, neighbors, or even strangers – in the face of armed attack is alien to scripture” (David French, National Review).

Does caring for the widow and for the orphan not entail the preservation of life?

Jesus is not a new, separate “god,” one at war with His Father or with the Old Testament scriptures. The Old Testament’s rests great emphasis upon the value of life, including the right to defend oneself and others from bodily harm (Nehemiah 4:14 is just one example). This reverence for life is present in the New Testament as well. For instance, it was at the Last Super when Christ instructed His disciples, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one,” (Luke 22:36) (emphasis mine).

This brings me to my fourth and final point: Waller never presents theological evidence to support his thesis that it is immoral for faculty and administrators to be armed in defense of students. Christ’s disciples were themselves teachers of the Word and good news. This thought appears to have escaped the assistant rector altogether.

Ryan Waller is quick to launch the barb of moral reprehensibility at Pantego Christian Academy, and by default, at all Christian schools who choose to follow Pantego’s lead.

Yet, to read Waller’s article one may be led to believe that Christ was a pacifist – He wasn’t – and that Christians should simply do nothing in the event of a school shooting, but passively accept our demise and the demise of countless children via the bullets of a madman… as the minutes pass by before the first law enforcement officer arrives.

To use Waller’s own words: His decision to twist scripture and omit context in order to lend credence to his personal, political opinion, draping non-theological sentiments in the cloak of religion, “is not only ill-advised, it is morally reprehensible.”